The Black Vault

Is it possible to be a constitutional democrat? I once went to a democrat meeting. It was while they
were organizing for the “health” care bill, or as I like to call it, TARP for the insurance corporations. When I brought up the fact that it was unconstitutional, they didn't care. I even got an argument talking about helmet laws (not that I agree with those either, but that is beside the point). I had to point out that the helmet laws are state laws not federal. I continued with the fact that Washington state already has health care available for people who don't otherwise have it. The point was lost. Of course, the state health care doesn't work very well either and is going to be cut, but that too is beside the point. The people I met not only didn't read or understand the constitution, but they also didn't care. One of whom was an ex-state legislator who basically called me a liar when I explained provisions in the bill, which he hadn't read, that would ruin small business owners and possibly send them to prison if they didn't or couldn't pay. He didn't care about the
constitution either and he swore an oath to uphold it!

One man basically said that he was "F'd" if the bill didn't pass. He yelled this through the streets of Seattle over and over. I guess this new corporate bailout was all about him. Maybe democrats aren't the bleeding hearts they'd like you to believe? Maybe they're just selfish and believe they
deserve something for nothing? Or maybe they have a similar victim mentality that many criminals have, in that because they're born, the world is out to get them and they deserve free things because of all their life problems?

But, this isn't about the insurance corporate bailout. This is about the constitution (everything is
about the constitution now-a-days) and democrats, can a person believe in both? Or, are the two ideas diametrically opposed?

I guess the first place to start is what is a democrat? What divides democrats from republicans? What values do they hold? How does the media separate democrats from republicans? Personally, I don't see much difference between the two when it comes to political decisions. It seems like every
politician's corporate sponsors are the ones who make the rules. Maybe the only difference between the two is how the main stream media portrays the two?

The media uses emotional triggers to separate democrats from republicans. They like to throw out things like abortion and gay marriage. These are things that traditionally conservative republicans are very opposed to. However, democrats embrace both ideas. Nobody ever talks about the constitutional aspects of these things. First of all, both should be state issues, not federal issues. Abortion was legalized by arguing the fourth amendment in a federal court. Read Roe vs Wade, it's about the right to privacy/illegal search and seizure. But, today's mantra is, “a woman's choice”. I'm not sure how privacy relates to pregnancy. After a few months of pregnancy it is going to be pretty obvious a woman is pregnant. Sure there are exceptions, but very few. You can't be sort of pregnant, or almost pregnant, you're either pregnant or you're not. If Roe vs Wade was won by using the bill of rights, does that make it constitutional? Does democrat support of it help to connect democrats with the constitution? I don't know, but my gut says no.

What about gay marriage? Again, another state issue. I can't find anything in the constitution about
marriage. If the power isn't given to the government, then it's up to we the people. Personally, I'm of the belief that nobody needs to ask the government permission to get married. That is between them and their understanding of God. Today, it really comes down to money, not marriage. It's really about insurance. If only one person works, and they're not married, the other person can't benefit from the worker's health/life insurance or social security if the other dies. Should a business be forced to pay for a live in partner's health insurance? Is the state allowed to force employers to do that? It's fine and dandy for a company to advertise the fact that the employee's benefits also apply to their live in partner if they choose, but I don't think the state is allowed to force that onto businesses. Social security is already a federal program that needs to be abolished. Might as well make them pay out to anyone who was living with the person who died and payed into the system. But, social security is a whole other mess from the feds.

I started thinking about this when people in the patriot movement were suggesting that we need to get constitution loving Americans into both parties.

Nesaie wrote: He didn't care about the constitution either and he swore an oath to uphold it!

Sums up your first paragraph. Not many people in any sort of power care about the Constitution.

Maybe democrats aren't the bleeding hearts they'd like you to believe?

o rly?

This is about the constitution (everything is about the constitution now-a-days) and democrats, can a person believe in both?

No one can believe in the Constitution and be either a Democrat or a Republican, or a Liberal or a Conservative, or any other tag that's glued on to people who have to find a group to relate with.

Personally, I don't see much difference between the two when it comes to political decisions.

All I really know is that Democrats hate guns. It makes them cry and hide in houses until the good policemen come and take them away.

But I'm biased, so someone else can handle it.

First of all, both should be state issues, not federal issues. Abortion was legalized by arguing the fourth amendment in a federal court.

So states should ignore the 14th Amendment and let "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" be to their discretion?

If Roe vs Wade was won by using the bill of rights, does that make it constitutional?

Yes, since that's what the Supreme Court is there for.

Personally, I'm of the belief that nobody needs to ask the government permission to get married. That is between them and their understanding of God.

Personally, I agree with you.

Today, it really comes down to money, not marriage. It's really about insurance. If only one person works, and they're not married, the other person can't benefit from the worker's health/life insurance or social security if the other dies.

Equality under all, even if they don't happen to be connected under the term "marriage".

Should a business be forced to pay for a live in partner's health insurance? Is the state allowed to force employers to do that? It's fine and dandy for a company to advertise the fact that the employee's benefits also apply to their live in partner if they choose, but I don't think the state is allowed to force that onto businesses.

As a firm advocate of the 14th Amendment, yes, I do believe that business should be forced as such.

Social security is already a federal program that needs to be abolished. Might as well make them pay out to anyone who was living with the person who died and payed into the system. But, social security is a whole other mess from the feds.

You hate FDR and Wilson, right?

Closing statements - I look forward to being showed up by someone with many more years experience of arguing the topic. I don't expect a 20 year old (me) winning against a... 28 year old? (you? )

Wing-Zero wrote:

Nesaie wrote: He didn't care about the constitution either and he swore an oath to uphold it!

Sums up your first paragraph. Not many people in any sort of power care about the Constitution.

Sad, ain't it?

Wing-Zero wrote:

Maybe democrats aren't the bleeding hearts they'd like you to believe?

o rly?

I guess I could expand on this. I do have friends who are truly bleeding hearts. They're good people, or at least they try. But, for these politically active dems that I met, it had nothing to do with helping others, it was a "me" thing. Even when I talked about Obummer expanding the war, I was told that it was "too early". Aren't they "anti-war", like me? It seems that democrats almost resonate with the selfish. Yet, selfishness is blamed on republicans and capitalists. Um...if you're looking for a hand out, doesn't that make you selfish? I dunno, it's just a thought I've been pondering. I know "hippies" that believe in the constitution. But, to look at them, nobody would call them conservative. They have long hair, dirty clothes, yet, they are all about the bill of rights and the constitution. They didn't get there by being young "conservatives". They got there by other means. Oh, they also work, these "hippies" I mean.

Wing-Zero wrote:

This is about the constitution (everything is about the constitution now-a-days) and democrats, can a person believe in both?

No one can believe in the Constitution and be either a Democrat or a Republican, or a Liberal or a Conservative, or any other tag that's glued on to people who have to find a group to relate with.

Ugh...labels...names...The definitions I read for liberal was they wanted change. Conservatives don't. Democrats and republicans are parties, not necessarily ideologies. They tell their people what their "platform" is AKA what they believe. That reminds me of religions telling individuals what their version is. But, I don't want to get into religion here. I'm much more of an anarchistic-libertarian. Alas, that too is one more label.

Wing-Zero wrote:

Personally, I don't see much difference between the two when it comes to political decisions.

All I really know is that Democrats hate guns. It makes them cry and hide in houses until the good policemen come and take them away.

But I'm biased, so someone else can handle it.

Maybe not all democrats...just a thought. However, I gave one of my "bleeding-heart" friends the book, "More Guns Less Crime", and she refused to read it. She had no evidence or valid argument against the stats and studies in the book, she just refused to look at the evidence! That is the most frustrating. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink".

Wing-Zero wrote:

First of all, both should be state issues, not federal issues. Abortion was legalized by arguing the fourth amendment in a federal court.

So states should ignore the 14th Amendment and let "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" be to their discretion?

Let's revisit the 14th Amendment:

Section I. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherin they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Where exactly is that happiness clause? What happens when the 10th Amendment clashes with the 14th, AKA the states rights of Arizona vs. anchor babies of illegals?

OK, if you're going to be a "supporter of the 14th Amendment", please read it first.

Wing-Zero wrote:

If Roe vs Wade was won by using the bill of rights, does that make it constitutional?

Yes, since that's what the Supreme Court is there for.

I've got a few questions about the Supreme Court...Michael Badnarak suggested some interesting things about it...I'm not sure...

Wing-Zero wrote:

Today, it really comes down to money, not marriage. It's really about insurance. If only one person works, and they're not married, the other person can't benefit from the worker's health/life insurance or social security if the other dies.

Equality under all, even if they don't happen to be connected under the term "marriage".

Should a business owner be forced to do this? If the business owner chooses, that is one thing, but government doesn't have the privilege to force individual business owners. That would be, could be capitalism.

Wing-Zero wrote:

Should a business be forced to pay for a live in partner's health insurance? Is the state allowed to force employers to do that? It's fine and dandy for a company to advertise the fact that the employee's benefits also apply to their live in partner if they choose, but I don't think the state is allowed to force that onto businesses.

As a firm advocate of the 14th Amendment, yes, I do believe that business should be forced as such.

Huh? What does the 14th Amendment have to do with capitalism???

Wing-Zero wrote:

Social security is already a federal program that needs to be abolished. Might as well make them pay out to anyone who was living with the person who died and payed into the system. But, social security is a whole other mess from the feds.

You hate FDR and Wilson, right?

Yes. Of the 20th century, I figure my favorite president was Ike.

Of the 21st century, we still haven't had an elected president. Bush wasn't elected either time and obummer isn't American.

Wing-Zero wrote:Closing statements - I look forward to being showed up by someone with many more years experience of arguing the topic. I don't expect a 20 year old (me) winning against a... 28 year old? (you? )

A lady never tells her age. If a lady tells you her age...she'll tell you anything.

I'm old enough to be you're mother. And, I'm too honest to deal cars.

Hey Wing, I don't see this as a "debate", I see this as a discussion, an enjoyable discussion. You have never insulted me, you've always been respectable. You must have good parents. However, if you want a debate from me, you'll need to first make me mad. That is when I actually go out and have the passion to find the evidence to support my case.

Update: I didn't abandon the thread, I promise I'll be back. I'm just looking for the right choice of words to correctly respond to you.

I'm also looking for the right kind of buzz that I had when I first responded. It really should be a scientific field with the amount of testing I'm doing.

More at 11.

Cool, no problem.

But, I'd really like you to expand on the 14th Amendment and why you're such an advocate of it. In your own words, of course.

Nesaie wrote:Cool, no problem.

But, I'd really like you to expand on the 14th Amendment and why you're such an advocate of it. In your own words, of course.

Because the states end up making bogus rules and turn into micro-nations more than an actual Republic. Using the Civil War as a prime example, they flaunted State's Rights without any regard to human decency. That's why the "Incorporation" portion of the 14th Amendment is so important, because it makes sure that the Bill of Rights and its basic outline is honored by each and every state under the Union/Republic/Democratic Union of the Republic/etc.

And now, in no particular order (thanks to Senor Cuervo...)

Nesaie wrote:Where exactly is that happiness clause? What happens when the 10th Amendment clashes with the 14th, AKA the states rights of Arizona vs. anchor babies of illegals?

OK, if you're going to be a "supporter of the 14th Amendment", please read it first.

It's in the "Incorporation" Clause, doll.

As for the "10th Amendment's clash", it should be remembered that anything not delegated to the US Constitution is reserved to the states and its peoples. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness being part of the Constitution, it's reasonable to assume that they fall under the beginning sentences of our fair piece of paper.

If you'd like to get in an Arizona argument, I'd be happy to oblige as well, sweetie.

I've got a few questions about the Supreme Court...Michael Badnarak suggested some interesting things about it...I'm not sure...

Question as much as you wish, I'll try to answer as best as I can. May I recommend the reasoning behind McDonald vs. Chicago, for your thoughts?

Should a business owner be forced to do this? If the business owner chooses, that is one thing, but government doesn't have the privilege to force individual business owners. That would be, could be capitalism.

I'll rephrase - I feel like I was agreeing with you, but you might of gotten the wrong vibe. My bad?

Huh? What does the 14th Amendment have to do with capitalism???

The fact that the 14th Amendment ties in with states following the guidelines laid out by the Constitution.

Author's Note - I might be quoting too vaguely. Please let me know and I'll be sure to add more information from other quotes post-haste.

Yes. Of the 20th century, I figure my favorite president was Ike.

Of the 21st century, we still haven't had an elected president. Bush wasn't elected either time and obummer isn't American.

Something like that. My favorite is, and will forever be, Theodore Roosevelt - as anyone who's read my posts would understand. The man is one of my five heroes, and whom I strive to be more like each and every day.

A lady never tells her age. If a lady tells you her age...she'll tell you anything.

I'm old enough to be you're mother. And, I'm too honest to deal cars.

Hey Wing, I don't see this as a "debate", I see this as a discussion, an enjoyable discussion. You have never insulted me, you've always been respectable. You must have good parents. However, if you want a debate from me, you'll need to first make me mad. That is when I actually go out and have the passion to find the evidence to support my case.

In no particular order...

If you knew my mom's age, you might be a bit inclined to revise that statement, doll.

I try to make everything as enjoyable as possible for each party, unless someone tries to insult my intelligence, which you most certainly have not done (yet ).

I can play a lot of parts. Charming, intelligent, mysterious, young, old, sarcastic, serious, etc. I can't feint anger on command though. We're in the same boat, sadly. I was taught to stay calm and respectful of others opinions at all times. You'll have to deal with my soothing words and lovely logic for now, I'm afraid.

My parents were the best of the best. If you'd like to know more, though, I'm afraid you'll have to PM me for a history lesson.

Hang on, let me grab a Constitution and reread this.

Maybe this will help. I'll type the fourteenth amendment here. I'm not going to link to something, so if there are typos, its my fault. That way, I'll once again reread it, and please point out the corporation part, 'cause I can't find it. I thought you might have been referring to a legal statute from the 19th Century that equated human individuals to corporations.

ARTICLE XIV
Section I. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of the State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of the State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

OK, so where is the corporate part? I get the "life liberty and the pursuit of property...um happiness" but where do they mention corporations?

However, section three is interesting. Does that mean that a boy like Rahm Emanuel, the son of a terrorist and a boy who fought for another country (not the US), can't be part of Obummers or Clinton's "administration" legally? I need to read and study more. Thank you for making me reread this. The Constitution is like the Bible, you CAN'T read it too many times to learn something new.

Maybe next time I'll type out the Declaration of Independence.

Cool deal, Nesaie. When you're done, send copies to the Senate, White House & Congress, with a note explaining the difference between We and Wee On.

FWIW, I don't personally believe there's such a thing as a Constitutional politician of any kind right now, including those that would 'take a daily one', since they all seem to be full of s***.